This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) measured by the AMSR-E instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite continue the fall which began several months ago. The following plot, updated through yesterday (August 18, 2010) reveals the global average SSTs continue to cool, while the Nino34 region of the tropical east Pacific remains well below normal, consistent with La Nina conditions.

The average person may not associate coolness with the sun. The sun releases energy through deep nuclear fusion reactions in its core and has surface temperatures as hot as 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to NASA's Web site.

Not cool at all.

But the sun's recent activity, or lack thereof, may be linked to the pleasant summer temperatures the midwest has enjoyed this year, said Charlie Perry, a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Lawrence. The sun is at a low point of a deep solar minimum in which there are few to no sunspots on its surface.

Perry said there is a feeling from some in the scientific community the Earth may be entering into a grand minimum, which is an extended period with low numbers of sunspots that creates cooler temperatures. The year without a summer, which was 1816, was during a grand minimum in 1800 to 1830 when Europe became cooler, Perry said. Another grand minimum was in 1903 to 1913.

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming. They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

You still don't get it. You can't use one-year or less than one year periods to try to show temperature trends. It doesn't work that way.

Solar activity is at an extreme low and has just started rising again. That will spike the temperature back up again - on the short term. That's normal. The sun has a short-term 11-year (approximately) cycle. This is well known and well accounted for. You claim it's ignored. It isn't. By the way, the sun's long-term trend has been totally flat for about 50 years now.
Ocean cooling and warming over a 5-ish year cycle is the el-nino/la nina cycle. It's normal. You can't point at a cooling ocean and say the world's going to get cooler. This cycle is well known and well accounted for. You claim it's ignored. It isn't.

Nobody claims there are no natural climate forcings and nobody claims there are no natural cycles. Your entire post is a giant straw man.

Last edited by Deuce; 08-31-10 at 09:51 PM.

He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear

Re: Climate change lies are exposed

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Yes, colder temperatures are one of the most significant signs of global warming.

While I wouldn't call it "one of the most significant" signs, or even a particularly notable sign, the perverse reality is that higher global average temperatures can lead to more extreme cold weather events as well as warm weather events. More energy in the system, larger oscillations in both directions. It's actually not so much about the colder [I]temperatures,/I] but rather severe snowstorms and such.

But you were gonna go with a sarcastic straw man, so we can run with that too I guess.

He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear

Re: Climate change lies are exposed

It's nine years...and you people use the ten years preceding 1998 to establish your trend. So you can't reject the subsequent nine years that reverse that trend.

If you want it both ways, you have to pay extra.

2010 is, so far, the hottest on record ever.

Yeah, that's why it's something like the second coldest summer ever in Los Angeles, and why NASA is claiming a cooler globe this year. Now, that's the fact presented. Hence, claiming that the year is the hottest ever is simple psychological denial of the cited fact.

There's a reason people use decades when describing temperature trends:

There's a reason people use centuries to identify climate trends.

The trend is clearly up. Anyone who says otherwise is goddamned delusional.

The posted temperature plots say otherwise. They go up, they go down, and oh, by the way, 1998 was not the hottest year on record, one of the Dust Bowl Years from the '30's claims that distinction.

Cap and trade didn't even make a floor vote. It's dead. But have fun with your conspiracy theories.

Re: Climate change lies are exposed

Originally Posted by Deuce

While I wouldn't call it "one of the most significant" signs, or even a particularly notable sign, the perverse reality is that higher global average temperatures can lead to more extreme cold weather events as well as warm weather events. More energy in the system, larger oscillations in both directions. It's actually not so much about the colder [I]temperatures,/I] but rather severe snowstorms and such.

But you were gonna go with a sarcastic straw man, so we can run with that too I guess.

Naturally, what this means is that warmer global temperatures means that the earth is getting colder.

Re: Climate change lies are exposed

Another issue is whether it is appropriate to use quantitative subjective probabilities when
statements are qualitative in nature or imprecisely stated. Many of the 71 conclusions in the
“Current Knowledge about Future Impacts” section of the Working Group II Summary for
Policy Makers are imprecise statements made without reference to the time period under
consideration or to a climate scenario under which the conclusions would be true. Consider, for
example, the statement:

Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Revision
34

In Central and Eastern Europe, summer precipitation is projected to decrease, causing higher water
stress. Health risks due to heatwaves are projected to increase. Forest productivity is expected to
decline and the frequency of peatland fires to increase. (High confidence; IPCC, 2007b, p. 14)
There is no indication about when these events are expected to occur or under what conditions.
What changes in climate would give rise to these results? What is assumed about adaptation? It
could be argued that, given the imprecision of the statement, it has an 80 percent chance of being
true under some set of circumstances.

In the Committee’s view, assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not an appropriate
way to characterize uncertainty. If the confidence scale is used in this way, conclusions will
likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of
“very high confidence” will have little substantive value.11 More importantly, the use of
probabilities to characterize uncertainty is most appropriate when applied to empirical quantities
(Morgan et al., 2009). The following statement may be true but should not be assigned a
probability of occurrence:

Nearly all European regions are anticipated to be negatively affected by some future impacts of
climate change, and these will pose challenges to many economic sectors. (Very high confidence;
IPCC, 2007b, p. 14)

The upshot? The IPCC isn't dealing in science, it's channelling Jeane Dixon, and making vague statements that are almost certainly going to happen someday. It appears, from the IPCC report, that Europe is going to meet a tall dark handsome stranger. Which means, for all anyone can tell, that a black giraffe is going to be born in the Paris zoo. Other statements say that bad weather might cause some damage somewhere.

Oh, really? Who could have guessed that one?

The IAC said the IPCC did some good. But they didn't mention that only with the stand up comics in search of new material.

Re: Climate change lies are exposed

It's nine years...and you people use the ten years preceding 1998 to establish your trend. So you can't reject the subsequent nine years that reverse that trend.

If you want it both ways, you have to pay extra.

Uhh. The trend for every single one of the past several decades is UPWARDS. So, you're incorrect.

Yeah, that's why it's something like the second coldest summer ever in Los Angeles, and why NASA is claiming a cooler globe this year. Now, that's the fact presented. Hence, claiming that the year is the hottest ever is simple psychological denial of the cited fact.

LA covers about .00001% of the world's surface area, so nice anecdote there. Now, can you show me where NASA claimed a "cooler globe," and can you qualify that statement? Cooler than what? "Cited fact," yet you've not actually cited anything. I plugged in a few terms like "NASA" "cooling" and "2010" into google, but I find nothing.

There's a reason people use centuries to identify climate trends.

Did you happen to look at the trend for this century? It isn't down!

The posted temperature plots say otherwise. They go up, they go down, and oh, by the way, 1998 was not the hottest year on record, one of the Dust Bowl Years from the '30's claims that distinction.

Posted temperatures go up and down, but the overall trend is up. You might need a statistics 101 class or something.
You're probably talking about 1934. 1934 was the hottest year on record, in the United States. Of course, the United States only covers about 2% of the world's surface area. Globally speaking, it's 1998. See, this is what happens when you take bloggers and tabloids words at face value. You base your opinions on faulty information.